Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Do you think human nature will change- ever? Then it really doesn'tmatter about reality.

On May 29, 7:36 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>wrote:> Nanotech is just the implementation of another layer of our understanding of> the universe. I think we still have a long ways to go before we actually> have a firm grasp on the true nature of reality.>>>> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Menfranco Laws <menfra...@gmail.com> wrote:> > Hi everybody!> > Well said Ash, where is Pat indeed when we need him to say God's> > things, because for me when you are talking about nanotech makes me> > thing about God and ask myself this question; Is this nanotech the> > link between us and God? Perhaps once we have learned enough about> > this nanotech we be able to understand how God works? Who knows? it is> > just a thought.>> > On May 24, 9:48 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > Where's Pat when we need him?>> > > On 5/23/2011 8:08 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com wrote:>> > > > I'm fairly certian this site is not umm being honest. As far as I> > > > know we simply have not yet managed to do this.>> > > > One of the biggest problems in quantum compting is that old quantum> > > > chestnut of simply by looking we influence the result.>> > > > With Quantum bit (Qbit) computing, the idea is to make use of the> > > > verious quantum states of a moclucule, so that a Qbit can hold> > > > possibly 4 (all to do with spin) pieces of data at the same time. The> > > > problem comes in retriving this data and ensuring that by 'reading'> > > > the data it remains unchanged.>> > > > On May 20, 10:17 pm, gabbydott<gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >> Thanks for providing me with the right key words. And this is the> > stuff I> > > >> meant:http://www.dwavesys.com/en/products-services.html>> > > >> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Chuck Bowling<>> > > >> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>> Nanotechnology is used in a lot of places but it's still far from> > reaching> > > >>> its full potential. Right now most nanotech is just new applications> > of> > > >>> materials science. Potentially nanotech could be used to create> > robots> > > >>> smaller than a single human cell or for that matter to create new> > life.> > > >>> As to quantum physics, it provides insight into microelectronics. But> > the> > > >>> hope is that one day we will be able to create computers based on> > quantum> > > >>> spin. That still hasn't happened yet.> > > >>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, gabbydott<gabbyd...@gmail.com>> > wrote:> > > >>>> What? I thought nanotech was already in use in the cosmetics> > industry and> > > >>>> quantatech (is that how you call it?) in the computer industry.> > > >>>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Chuck Bowling<> > > >>>> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>> I'm in agreement about the radical changes that nanotech appear to> > > >>>>> promise. Changes that could spell doom or a complete redefinition> > of what it> > > >>>>> is to be human. It's about the only thing that makes me want to> > live longer> > > >>>>> than my allotted time. Just so that I can see what miracles come> > next.> > > >>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>> Yeah, I was fear mongering Chuck, a political device. ;-) This> > is a> > > >>>>>> favorite topic of mine, it is at the axis of many fields. To> > accelerate> > > >>>>>> nanotech development I think we should implement rapid> > prototyping,> > > >>>>>> experimentation and analysis systems. When I envision man at the> > beginning> > > >>>>>> of this revolution I look for tools that would allow an explosion> > > >>>>>> (figuratively) of development, being able to catalog and operate a> > multitude> > > >>>>>> of experiments in parallel, while building a massive library of> > modeled> > > >>>>>> behavior for materials and systems interoperating in the real> > world to> > > >>>>>> improve the robustness and diversity of this technology is> > apparently the> > > >>>>>> way to go. To think that the behavior of biological systems can be> > > >>>>>> abstracted and used to formulate dynamic systems guided by expert> > algorithms> > > >>>>>> to solve material challenges in real time guided by people over> > vast> > > >>>>>> distances, it goes beyond genetics, I am in awe at the potential> > universe we> > > >>>>>> are venturing toward. We will also be able to make changes to> > ourselves and> > > >>>>>> our experience of this world at a similar rate..> > > >>>>>> On 5/19/2011 1:41 AM, Chuck Bowling wrote:> > > >>>>>> I think that with nanotechnology we will be able to synthesize> > pretty> > > >>>>>> much anything we want from raw materials in the future. Assuming> > that any> > > >>>>>> alien race capable of traveling the trillions of miles to get here> > would> > > >>>>>> have at least the same level of technology my guess is that they> > wouldn't> > > >>>>>> need anything we'd have to offer.> > > >>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >>>>>>> There is another good reason to develop our technologies as a> > species,> > > >>>>>>> think how we are looking at the planets and celestial bodies as> > vast> > > >>>>>>> resources. Imagine if something else came through and strip mined> > the> > > >>>>>>> resources we would need to develop into a spacefaring species,> > that would> > > >>>>>>> suck big time. Like a tribe of humans moving through and picking> > all the> > > >>>>>>> nuts we squirrels need, or worse, deciding we were in the way of> > those> > > >>>>>>> resources, think what we have done in those situations.. I know> > it's> > > >>>>>>> unlikely considering the vast resources out there, but something> > might have> > > >>>>>>> it's eye on our pale blue dot too, working faster than us at> > making the> > > >>>>>>> leap.> > > >>>>>>> On 5/18/2011 8:37 PM, Chuck Bowling wrote:> > > >>>>>>> I think right now the technology will only allow us to tell if a> > planet> > > >>>>>>> is rocky or a gas giant. And even then only if it is a relatively> > massive> > > >>>>>>> planet. The last time I read anything on the subject the smallest> > planet> > > >>>>>>> found was something like 3 times the size of the Earth.> > > >>>>>>> IMO, the analogy with Columbus doesn't hold. 17th century> > technology> > > >>>>>>> allowed humans to travel anywhere on the Earth - albeit slow and> > wrought> > > >>>>>>> with hazard. If the analogy is that a neighboring star is like a> > new> > > >>>>>>> continent then we are more like cavemen discovering that a log> > can float. At> > > >>>>>>> the rate we're going it might be a thousand years before we can> > actually> > > >>>>>>> mount an expedition to another star.> > > >>>>>>> I think the primary reason we are so far from actually exploring> > other> > > >>>>>>> stars is mainly political rather than technological. But, I think> > you are> > > >>>>>>> right. It is a project worth attaching too. Now if we could just> > make the> > > >>>>>>> damn politicians see it that way... ;)> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>> > wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm not sure how accurate they can be in revealing planets> > enough like> > > >>>>>>>> ours to offer possibilities of a new promised land. They claim> > there> > > >>>>>>>> is one 20 light years away, or 300,000 years at current space> > travel> > > >>>>>>>> speeds. One can feel that this at least puts us somewhere near> > the> > > >>>>>>>> position of 'Columbus'. Our current 'tin-foil' technology won't> > do,> > > >>>>>>>> but at this kind of distance we are talking about something> > other than> > > >>>>>>>> worm-holes, 'relativity flight' or the kind of physics in which> > > >>>>>>>> distance is an illusion.> > > >>>>>>>> For someone like me who can't take god-stories seriously and> > quite> > > >>>>>>>> likes the idea of a human future (or at least the idea of> > evolution> > > >>>>>>>> not just ending through catastrophe), there is an opportunity to> > > >>>>>>>> believe in something distant in time and a need for us to direct> > > >>>>>>>> ourselves towards it. A time, perhaps in which a form of> > conscious> > > >>>>>>>> life can live very differently from now, and a project worth> > attaching> > > >>>>>>>> to - perhaps a reason for spirituality. Comments on this or the> > > >>>>>>>> technology welcome.- Hide quoted text -> > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text ->> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text ->> - Show quoted text -